Hot Topics:

Fee waiver sought at Hudson complex

HUDSON, N.H. -- Should 55-plus housing developments have to pay school-impact fees? In Hudson, it's become a $600,000 question.

Nine years after a previous developer of Sparkling River, a 55 and older community off Route 3A, made a deal with the town to pay school-impact fees of $3,500 for each of 140 condos in its 40-acre site plan, the project's new owner is asking the Hudson Planning Board to do away with the school-impact fees for the 95 units yet to be built.

The school-impact-fee waiver request, which was made by Sparkling River's owner, Bill Fokas, who also owns Martha's Exchange Restaurant in Nashua, has raised the ire of many residents who claim Fokas is unfairly seeking to renege on a done deal and deprive the Hudson School District of $300,000.

Critics of Fokas' request noted also that by setting a legal precedent, should Sparkling River's school-impact fees be waived or lowered, the town stands to lose another $300,000 in such fees owed by Oak Ridge, a 100-unit, 55 and older community under construction on Belknap Road by developer Manny Sousa.

"If there are no children, there are no impacts on your facilities and we don't think it's reasonable to have these 55-and-over communities have to pay these school-impact fees, moving forward," said consultant Mark Fougere of Milford, N.H., in addressing the Planning Board at their Dec. 12 meeting on Fokas' behalf.

Advertisement

Fougere presented the board with his statistical research on existing 55 and older developments in Hudson, Windham, Bedford and Londonderry, showing that in 474 age-restricted units there are seven schoolchildren living in them, or .14 percent. Fougere noted that is more than four times lower than what is found in single-family residences elsewhere in New England, of .65 percent schoolchildren per household.

"The purpose of impact fees is to address housing that creates extra capacity that a school does not have," said Fougere. "All we're asking is that the fee reflect what is actually occurring in the marketplace. We've already paid $95,000 to the town in school-impact fees, and we're not sending busloads of kids to the schools. We're asking to no longer be treated as a nonage-restricted development."

Fougere's argument on behalf of Fokas was not convincing four residents who spoke in opposition during last month's public hearing.

"I've heard (from Fougere) there's no children over there, but my son rides the school bus and sees children get off the bus at Sparkling River. Children do live there, maybe not a lot, but they do," said abutter Sharon Davis. "Sparkling River should not get out of paying $300,000. The developer is from Nashua. Our school systems are hurting. They need that $300,000."

According to Scenic Lane neighbor Frank Rockett, many more residents would have attended the meeting to object to Fokas' request had the developer been legally required to notify more than just abutters "at the last minute," said Rockett.

"I had no impact to the school system, but I paid the (school impact) fee," said Rockett. "I assume the town had earmarked that ($600,000) when these projects were approved so, if it's reneged on, who makes up the difference? The taxpayer... You should not be able to pick and choose what services you pay for."

Edith Paradis told the board she was the last homeowner to buy into Hudson's first 55 and older community, the 31-unit Reeds Brook, which was built in 2002, "and I paid an impact fee," said Paradis. "I don't think it's fair that if we paid, they don't have to pay."

Having heard from the developer and opponents, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve a motion made by member George Hall to act on Fokas' waiver-fee request at their Feb. 13 meeting. Until then, Town Planner John Cashell was instructed by the board to make his own study of schoolchildren at age-restricted communities in the region, and to have discussions with Town Counsel about the legality of Sparkling River's request.

Cashell said based on the statistics showing .14 schoolchildren at 55 and olfrt communities, he was prepared to recommend to the Planning Board that they charge Sparkling River a scaled-down school-impact fee of $600 per unit.

"We're still working on the numbers," said Cashell on Wednesday.

If a new impact-fee rate is adopted, there will be no refunds given retroactively for any of the $3,500-per-unit fees paid previously to the town, Cashell said.

"I'd just like everybody to understand: Everybody pays property taxes, whether you have children or not, and a portion of that goes to the schools, another portion to town government operations," said Cashell. "But a school-impact fee is a one-time fee issued to new buildings being constructed and can only go toward the building of new schools, or additions to schools, based on increased population."

Sparkling River residents will be asked to pay no more than their fair share to support public education through property taxes, Cashell added.

"These school-impact fees were part of the real-estate landscape in Hudson since the 1980s, and they've never really been challenged (by developers)," said Cashell. "But now that we're in much slower growth years and every penny counts with these developers -- who aren't getting the money per unit they were getting at the peak of the market-- they're trying to make every aspect of the project as cost-effective as possible. The price of real estate isn't going up, so this is an avenue they've decided to hone in on."

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sun. So keep it civil.